| Author | Post |
|---|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 10:49 am |
|
Shamu I agree it is a huge decision that has been batted around for at least 10 years now in Summerfield. We now have 900 kids playing or trying to play organized sports on fields that were built when the town was much smaller. We have an obesity epidemic. We have air polution. Ball fields answer many needs. You can't build houses on them so they give us open space for water recharge although they really are not much better than paved roads for that. They give us places for our kids to exercise and learn important life lessions playing organized sports. I think ballfields also give people meeting places. The Y for the three towns is a great idea but years off and will not possibly provide enough ballfields for all the towns. It is my understanding Stokesdale and Oakridge have similiar problems with lack of space. Maybe not to the extent as Summerfield but they dont' have room to spare either.
When we incorporated we said to the county we will be responsible for ourselves. It is the responsible thing to do as a Town to look after our kids. We certainly have large numbers of kids going to other communities to use ballfields.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 12:48 pm |
|
| I will give a detailed post on this subject when I have more time. Thank you Shamu for starting this post.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: It is my understanding Stokesdale and Oakridge have similiar problems with lack of space. Maybe not to the extent as Summerfield but they dont' have room to spare either.
Jane, Oak Ridge and Stokesdale do face the same problem with lack of ball fields. As a parent of older teenagers, the youngest of which just stopped play organized sports last year at age 16 (only because of an injury) and the oldest of which played until she aged out at 18, I can verify that there are so many kids trying to play these sports. I can also say that recreational sports are a wonderful thing for kids to be involved in.
Oak Ridge and Stokesdale are both in the process of addressing their need for athletic fields. Oak Ridge has obtained a PARTF grant and is about to begin construction on their 66-acre park. It will have a couple of baseball/softball fields and a couple of multipurpose fields.
Oak Ridge has traditionally had more baseball/softball fields than the other towns, but they lost a couple when the school was expanded. The Oak Ridge Youth Assn. also has a football program -- the only one in the NW area, so kids from Summerfield and Stokesdale also play on it. Although they practice in OR, they play their games on the field at Northwest High School. The ORYA also has a soccer program, and I believe they play their games at Beeson Park in Kernersville, again because OR has no field space.
Stokesdale is still in the planning stages for their park, but I believe it will have a couple of multipurpose fields. My understanding is that they now play soccer in the outfield areas of the current baseball/softball fields. While this sounds like a good way to use space, this means Stokesdale can't have both spring and fall leagues of both sports. Baseball/softball teams use the fields in spring and soccer teams use the fields in fall. (If I'm wrong on any of this info, somebody please correct me.)
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 01:53 pm |
|
OK, there are good reasons FOR having ballfields in Summerfield (Jane, I'm not too sure about obesity and air pollution), but speaking of pollution, there is pollution created by ballfields. As someone who lives 1/2 mile from the current ballfields, I can personally attest to two types of pollution; noise and light. And the woman who spoke at the meeting on Tuesday just summed it up beautifully by saying "Oh my" (my rough remembered quotation). The ballfields are really imposing if you're trying to just live your life. I'm sure the noise and bright lights add to the experience of participants, but they are unwanted by neighbors.
I don't have an easy answer to this quandry. I do think there is a valid arguement for ballfields, even at taxpayers expense (sorry Jim) but this is a situation where a lot of aspects need to be considered.
Finding the best place for the ballfields will be a situation of discussion and compromise, but if Summerfield can't do this in a fair, above-board and understandable way, who can? This may actually be the true test of what Summerfiled is all about.
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 02:02 pm |
|
| Good points Sandra an' Shamu.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
EditorPS
Administrator
| Joined: | Oct 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 02:05 pm |
|
Shamu wrote: Finding the best place for the ballfields will be a situation of discussion and compromise, but if Summerfield can't do this in a fair, above-board and understandable way, who can? This may actually be the true test of what Summerfiled is all about.
Shamu, I believe in one of your earliest posts you commented something to the extent that the TOWN doesn't have feelings and best interests -- PEOPLE do -- and you're right. At this moment in time WE are the town, and this type of debate will be the true test for what WE are about. Can WE be fair, can WE be above-board and can WE compromise?
I think we are all guilty of referencing "the town" when we want to put the responsibility on it, as an inanimate object, versus on ourselves. So, can WE be fair and civil and open-minded?
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 02:26 pm |
|
Shamu wrote: I don't have an easy answer to this quandry. I do think there is a valid arguement for ballfields, even at taxpayers expense (sorry Jim) but this is a situation where a lot of aspects need to be considered.
Shamu, I actually agree with your statement where taxpayers have signed off on and support purchase of land and construction of ballfields or any other recreational need (including municipal golf courses BTW). To simply build ballfields without taxpayer support, will in the end create even larger headaches and a political problem within the community much greater than the problem of lack of ballfields.
We have an excellent 'model' here in Stokesdale where a local group of community leaders saw the need 30 years or so ago for ballfields and they were able to purchase lands and construct two ballfields, all at no expense to the local taxpayer. That model proves it can be done privately when a group focuses on achieving an end and doesn't depend on government to meet all of their needs.
Let's face it, the needs of youth are quite different than the needs of others within a community including the needs of senior citizens on fixed incomes. Why should the needs of one group be any larger than the needs of another group? Why should those least able to afford the onerous burdens of government taxation be required to supplement the needs of a smaller minority group?
When Jane says that Summerfield has been planning ballfields for 10 years and that there are more than 900 kids wanting to play ball, it begs the question to me at least, why the private sector hasn't responded to this need like community leaders in Stokesdale did many years ago?
With a contribution of just over $100.00 per child per year by the families for each of these children for each of those past 10 years, the community of Summerfield would have raised $1,000,000.00 and the ballfields would already be a reality without government rather than a pipe dream while waiting on government. And it would seem that without that kind of parental support ($100.00 per child per year) the community should step back and take a closer look at whether this is a real need as opposed to simply a luxury that people say they want but are unwilling to pay for. (Which is exactly the conclusion that I think the Sellers survey actually represents and says by the way).
Throughout the whole United States, more and more state and local governments are facing greater pressures with each passing year on increasing costs and lowering revenues, and more and more state and local goverrnments are starting to look at and implement privatization of government services, with the understanding by all parties, that the private sector can almost always manage and build things cheaper and more cost effectively than government. And I strongly suggest to you and everyone, that sooner or later, there will come that day down the road, when the ongoing maintenance costs to citizens for ballfields in Summerfield will more effectively be managed with lower costs by a privatization of those ballfields rather than leaving them to the public responsibility of government.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 02:38 pm |
|
| Wow, Jim. That's a lot of good information, and maybe a whole new way of looking at it. Thanks for your comments.
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 03:23 pm |
|
I think the Summerfield Town Council learned a big lesson about 3 years ago when they tried to buy that property on Rabbit Hollow Road for ball fields. In what I believe they felt was a service to the town, they realized the neighbors DID NOT want ballfields there and they backed off.
Since then, and especially since they allocated money in last year's budget, they've been very public (at least to my knowledge) about where they are looking at property and allowing the public to speak and town committees to have input. I know they've put out public requests for property that might be available, and they're looking at a variety of criteria, including topography, access and surrounding development -- particularly residential, in evaluating it.
Ball fields are one of those things that people want, but it seems like most people don't want them close to their house. (I can think of worse things, but not sure I'd want them real close to me either.)
|
Vicki White-Lawrence
Member
| Joined: | Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 263 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 05:09 pm |
|
I live in the neighborhood where the Stokesdale ball park is located. I've lived here for 20 years, and I'm told that the ball park has been here for at least 40 years.
Aside from lights shining thru the trees in early spring and late winter, and some minor traffic issues, I wouldn't even know there is a ball park there. Oh yes, sometimes I hear cheers from the park, but that is actually a nice thing. (Traffic issues: a few folks who drive too fast in or out sometimes. People also seem to forget there is a stop sign as they leave the road leading to the park. Maybe they forget that there could be traffic coming the other way since it is a dead end road.)
My guess is that if you polled my neigbors they would either say they don't think that much about it (the ball park was here before most of the current residents) or that if it bothers them it is not a big deal. One thing I have noticed in the past couple of years is the increase in traffic in and around the park.
As a member of the Parks & Rec Board, I know that there is an increase in the number of children wanting to play. The Board has looked at different ways of making the most of the space they have, and have lobbied the Town to offer "multipurpose" fields on the 25 acres the town has purchased so that soccer can be moved there. As Sandra mentioned, we currently use everything at the current park except the infields when we run our soccer program. For all of the sports offered in Stokesdale, it is hard to offer as much as is needed because, in addition to playing games there, we need practice time on the fields. Children need time to work on skills in addition to participating in games.
One other point I'd like to add: I think people who say they shouldn't have to pay for recreation areas because they don't have children don't see the big picture. I think the parks help foster friendships, a sense of community and so much more than just offering kids a place to play. Jane's point about obesity and pollution was right on.... We need to offer viable options to watching TV and playing video games so that our children get out and exercise more (while they're playing) and breathing that fresh air. And instead of developing every inch of space, who not have it as an area for recreation -- why not, say, as ball fields and maybe even a walking track (or trail) around it? I think the argument could be made that we are actually making our communities safer and healthier for EVERYONE by having more ball fields.
|
EditorPS
Administrator
| Joined: | Oct 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 07:16 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Let's face it, the needs of youth are quite different than the needs of others within a community including the needs of senior citizens on fixed incomes. Why should the needs of one group be any larger than the needs of another group? Why should those least able to afford the onerous burdens of government taxation be required to supplement the needs of a smaller minority group?
Jim, I think it's great that you're such an advocate for senior citizens, and would love to hear more about how you think we can help them. I actually haven't heard much discussion in Summerfield about the burden of the town's property tax on our senior citizens, but you seem to have your ears closer to the ground that I do so please enlighten me with facts.
You rely very much on statistics and scientific data and place little, if any emphasis on gauging public interest and needs by listening to those who come to council meetings, contact the town elected officials by phone, e-mail or in person, submit letters to newspapers, etc. So tell me, based on your more scientific and dependable knowledge, what percentage of senior citizens in Summerfield live at the poverty level, and how much of a burden does the town's property tax place on them?
Let's do some quick math. Assuming a home is valued at $100,000 (which is not exatly considered a home owned by someone in poverty, but I'll use it for argument's sake), at a tax rate of 3.8 cents per $100 of property value, the tax on the entire household would be $38 per year. Assuming a home value of $150,000, the tax on the entire household would be $57 per year; and assuming a home value of $200,000, the tax on the entire household would be $76 per year, which breaks down to $6.33 per household per month. Just for the sake of this discussion, let's say you're not considered impoverished if you live in a home valued at over $200,000, so I won't take the calculations any higher than that.
Rather than say that the town shouldn't provide parks and ball fields because it's not fair to those who can't afford it, what if the town were to provide a tax exemption for those seniors who truly could not afford the $20 to $76 (based on statistics above) per year in property tax? I do recognize that despite all the $500,000+ homes in our town and all the new Yukons and Explorers that are guzzling gas at $2.50 per gallon, there are some families in our area who are impoverished ... and I think it would be wonderful, noble and right to help them. I just don't think building parks or ball fields has to mean that people in our town are consequently going to go hungry.
And what about the parents whose families are impoverished, just like the senior citizens? Are you suggesting we charge them $100 per child for them to play ball? Remember, there are other expenses that go into playing ball, like shoes, uniforms, bats, etc. Now I know, we could just say "too bad" -- if you can't afford to participate, you just can't participate. But isn't that just as wrong as being insensitive to senior citizens on a fixed income? You want to tell kids they can't play ball if they can't afford to contribute to purchasing ball fields?
I believe that everything is not just about me -- my last child will be out of the public school system this year, but I don't think I should have to stop paying taxes for education just because I won't personally be affected anymore. And I haven't had a child playing recreation sports in years, but I still want other kids to have the opportunity to play. There are some things that the community benefits from offering, even when you or I as an individual won't personally benefit.
Does that mean I want my tax dollars frivolously spent? Heck no, it just means that I don't mind paying $10 a month for the benefit of living in a community that provides parks and ball fields for kids. I am sure you are very aware of our demographics - Summerfield, Oak Ridge and Stokesdale are all at the top of the chart when it comes to household incomes -- let's offer exemptions for the small percentage of people who will truly be burdened by the 3.8 cents property tax. And for the rest of us who can, let's stop haggling over $6 -$12 per month like a bunch of misers counting our pennies ... all the while living comfortably in our nice houses, eating out and driving our gas-guzzling vehicles.
Long after we're gone and our bank accounts are closed, the parks and the ball fields will be here. I think what we leave behind for future generations speaks volumes about our character, our values, and our priorities. As for me, I'll gladly contribute to ball fields and parks for about $10 a month -- I've spent a whole lot more money than that on other things and gotten a whole lot less in return.
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 09:15 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: I think the Summerfield Town Council learned a big lesson about 3 years ago when they tried to buy that property on Rabbit Hollow Road for ball fields. In what I believe they felt was a service to the town, they realized the neighbors DID NOT want ballfields there and they backed off.
Since then, and especially since they allocated money in last year's budget, they've been very public (at least to my knowledge) about where they are looking at property and allowing the public to speak and town committees to have input. I know they've put out public requests for property that might be available, and they're looking at a variety of criteria, including topography, access and surrounding development -- particularly residential, in evaluating it.
Ball fields are one of those things that people want, but it seems like most people don't want them close to their house. (I can think of worse things, but not sure I'd want them real close to me either.)
Sandra, I think Michael Brandt has been fairly public about sites, in terms of where they are (and good for him!!). When, and how criterea are being applied needs to be out in the public, with consistency of application across sites. I look forward to seeing this as we work towards our decision(s).
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 11:36 pm |
|
Lets do the math. With 800 plus kids playing ball on 4 ball fields. Thats roughly 80 teams. We have 4 fields. 1 Tball, 1 Coach pitch, 1 Bronco/Mustang, and 1 for girls Softball. If we had an even division between all (we don't by the way) 1 practice and 2 games a week is not possible. The younger age groups have to be off the field by 8pm. Games and practices are generally not scheduled on Friday but used for a rain date make up. 8 teams can practice on 4 fields in a night. 16 teams can get a game in on 4 fields in a night. Starting to see the dilemma? Saturday you can get 12 teams for 6 game in for the younger age groups on the 2 smaller fields and 14 teams for 7 games in on the 2 larger fields. Thats only 52 teams get to play on a Sat out of 80 teams and 64 teams during the week. Thats playing time with no practice. So now figure in a practice and we don't have the space or time.
The sanctioning body that we operate under in PONY. We have to play at least 12 regular season games and have a ending tournament to qualify for sending a team(s) for ALL STAR play. This is very difficult but we seem to make it happen and have to cut out practice after the season starts (March 24th). So now we don't get to practice unless it is at somebody's backyard or at a private facility that costs more money. Practice is essential to develop skills and playing is not practice.
I hate to compare Summerfield with other Towns, but here I go. I have a friend that lives in the Southeast part of the county. His son plays ball at Pleasant Garden (that's where I played also). They have a Tournament to open the season, 25 regular season games, and a ending of the season tournament. Last season his son played 36 games while the most played a Summerfield was 16. So who's kid is the better ball player? You would think my friend's son. What area and schools are playing more ball? You would think somewhere other than here.
Pleasant Garden has grown since I left that area to move to Summerfield 12 years ago. They realized the need for more ballfields and have added more . Summerfield is falling behind when it comes to supporting the youth sports.
Youth sports are important in many more ways to our youth than just physical fitness. It teaches children to work well with others and take direction. It also teaches them to be leaders. I have seen the most introverted child become a team leader from playing organized sports. When parents tell me how well their child has progressed socially not to mention physically it makes it all worth while.
Last edited on Mar 17th, 2007 11:59 pm by Baseball Buddy
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 17th, 2007 11:51 pm |
|
| Ball fields come in many sizes. What I feel Summerfield needs (my opinion) is large size fields with movable shrinking type fencing to accommodate all types of play. It would be nice for us OLD folks to relive the glory days and play some ball too. I know at least 80 coaches and 80 assistant coaches who would like to play in Summerfield also. By the way we have to go to Greensboro to play.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 18th, 2007 12:03 am |
|
A good location should be centrally located. Away from the main highways (220 and 150) and have good access.
Shamu, very good question. Funding can be done numerous ways, but right now the Town of Summerfield has 1.5 million dollars budgeted for this. After that there are matching grants and even private grants . I imagine after that it will be self funded.
Last edited on Mar 18th, 2007 12:08 am by Baseball Buddy
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Current time is 12:58 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
|
|